[jdonn]

So just to be clear, failing to double after 2♠ p p with a 1444 13 count is un-blatantly ridiculous then?

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action. And anyway the tank can just as easily be a moderate hand with support as a strong hand without support. Or what if RHO has strength with a spade void and there is partner with 6! spades waiting for our double?

A moderate hand with 3 spades may tank to decide between bidding 2NT and 3S. I have never seen anyone tank with 3 spades and pass.

[NickRW]

jallerton, on Jul 20 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

To answer your question directly, I can point you to the previous paragraph of the EBU White Book:

Well, thanks for taking the trouble to cut and paste that. Not your fault, of course, but it seems to me that someone was playing with language when they wrote that. What I mean is, for example, a "revoke" - I thought that was against the rules - not just an error, serious or otherwise.

[jdonn]

cherdanno, on Jul 20 2010, 06:23 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 20 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action. And anyway the tank can just as easily be a moderate hand with support as a strong hand without support. Or what if RHO has strength with a spade void and there is partner with 6! spades waiting for our double?

A moderate hand with 3 spades may tank to decide between bidding 2NT and 3S. I have never seen anyone tank with 3 spades and pass.

Sorry but I think that's rubbish. In fact I have seen tanks on quite weak hands with 3 spades then pass here.

[rogerclee]

I have nothing interesting to add to this thread, but I would pass 2S out after a one minute tank specifically at these conditions (r/r MP).

[barmar]

jeremy69, on Jul 20 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

Quote

Aren't we supposed to give south the benefit of the doubt anyways if it's close?

But it is not (at least in my view). I don't care how long the man on my right thought for I would double. I've given up trying to work out what they think about anyway.

That's why it's often recommended to poll players. You don't want your rulings to be based on just your own style and bridge judgement.

[JLOGIC]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action.

I don't understand this point of view. Normal actions are normal because of the information available to you at the time. For instance:

3S p p ?

It is completely normal to bid 3N with 3334 16 HCP with a spade stopper, I'm sure you'll agree.

However if RHO tanked over 3S it would be pretty terrible to bid 3N, because we have new information that RHO has a problem. Yes it's possible that bidding 3N is still the winner but it is now just an anti percentage bid, whereas before it was possible 3N was wrong but it is just a percentage bid.

This is a similar situation. Doubling is normal, but given the information available from RHOs hesitation, I highly doubt it is percentage to double. At the very least it is made less attractive.

What is the legal basis for your theory that "no length tank cannot talk you out of a normal action"? Seems like it's just some kind of maxim or something.

Yes, this could be exploited by RHO tanking only when he wants you to pass, but that is illegal and why the laws exist. Yes maybe a very savvy RHO could exploit you by only tanking on hands with 3 spades and moderate values as you suggest, and nothing else, and probably win the ruling, but he would still be cheating even if he didn't get caught. In general I will assume people are not coffee housing me, and have the appropriate %age of hands that they usually have based on experience (most often being a good hand with short spades). I don't think it's up to me to protect against RHO cheating me here.

[bluejak]

NickRW, on Jul 21 2010, 01:43 AM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 20 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

To answer your question directly, I can point you to the previous paragraph of the EBU White Book:

Well, thanks for taking the trouble to cut and paste that. Not your fault, of course, but it seems to me that someone was playing with language when they wrote that. What I mean is, for example, a "revoke" - I thought that was against the rules - not just an error, serious or otherwise.

You are telling us it is not an error to revoke?

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Jul 21 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

You are telling us it is not an error to revoke?

I thought it was an infraction.

[MFA]

JLOGIC, on Jul 21 2010, 02:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 20 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

I do not think any length tank can talk you out of such a normal action.

(...)
What is the legal basis for your theory that "no length tank cannot talk you out of a normal action"? Seems like it's just some kind of maxim or something.
(...)

Josh included the word such, which stresses that it is a case of judgement in each concrete situation. A long pause can talk us out of actions, we would otherwise had taken, that's why the tank might be illegal in the first place, but there is a limit to what redress we can get.

The wording ("SEWoG") is new so we are essentially on our own as to what's included by it. We have to go with what's fair.

EBU has made an effort to interpret the words, which is great, but, for instance, I'm surpriced how gross the error has to be before EBU considers it a "serious error". It sounds more like a description of a "very serious error" to me.

Anyway, the EBU interpretations are only binding in the EBU jurisdiction.

The recent changing of the laws from "IWoG" to "SEWoG" seems to me to strongly suggest that the provision is to be used more often and thus more split scores are to be handed out in these kind of situations than in the old days. It's all about trying to get a feel for how much it takes to be a "SEWoG".

[blackshoe]

NickRW, on Jul 21 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 21 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

You are telling us it is not an error to revoke? 

I thought it was an infraction.

An infraction is, generally speaking, an error. Whether it's a serious error is another question.

[JanM]

MFA, on Jul 21 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

The recent changing of the laws from "IWoG" to "SEWoG" seems to me to strongly suggest that the provision is to be used more often and thus more split scores are to be handed out in these kind of situations than in the old days. It's all about trying to get a feel for how much it takes to be a "SEWoG".

Where does IWoG appear in the previous laws? It's not in Law 12 of the 1997 Laws. I haven't been able to find a digitized version of the Laws before 2007, so couldn't search for it except by turning pages in a physical book, which isn't very effective.

[JLOGIC]

MFA, on Jul 21 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

It's all about trying to get a feel for how much it takes to be a "SEWoG".

Ok thanks, that makes sense.

[blackshoe]

JanM, on Jul 21 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Where does IWoG appear in the previous laws?

It doesn't. It may have been in a WBFLC minute, I'm not sure.

[Cascade]

JLOGIC, on Jul 22 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

In general I will assume people are not coffee housing me, and have the appropriate %age of hands that they usually have based on experience (most often being a good hand with short spades). I don't think it's up to me to protect against RHO cheating me here.

I think this argument is flawed.

If some of the actions that RHO may choose are based on weak hands - pre-emptive raises, possibly non-forcing new suits etc - then it is possible and legal that a player who has such a weak hand has what is in his opinion a close decision between pass and some weak action.

His opinion as to what is close may be different than what you or I consider is close. However that does not make it illegal to think.

To me coffeehousing is when you deliberately try to mislead. It is not the antithesis of thinking when you have values. Justin (and others) seem to put thinking into two broad groups 1. thinking with values 2. coffeehousing completely discounting the possibility that someone may legitimately think without substantial values on a pass/act decision.

As an example the last time I thought for a considerable time over my partner's weak two I had a 9 count. As it happens I thought and then raised. But on another day or with only a slightly different hand I may have thought and passed. I had no thought of trying to deceive the opponents I was just trying to make the call that would hopefully get our side the best score.

[gordontd]

MFA, on Jul 21 2010, 04:15 PM, said:

The wording ("SEWoG") is new so we are essentially on our own as to what's included by it. We have to go with what's fair.

EBU has made an effort to interpret the words, which is great, but, for instance, I'm surpriced how gross the error has to be before EBU considers it a "serious error". It sounds more like a description of a "very serious error" to me.

There was a long discussion about this at the EBL TDs' course in San Remo, and the thrust of it was that we should be very circumspect about branding an action as a serious error. We went through a list of cases where TDs or ACs had considered actions to be serious errors, and in the vast majority of cases they were considered to have been wrong.

Of course (at the risk of boring everyone with repetition), it's only serious errors that are unrelated to the infraction that cause redress to be denied. The (in)action that started this thread off was not unrelated to the infraction, so whether or not you consider it a serious error, it wouldn't cause redress to be denied.

[aguahombre]

gordontd, on Jul 21 2010, 11:32 AM, said:

Of course (at the risk of boring everyone with repetition), it's only serious errors that are unrelated to the infraction that cause redress to be denied. The (in)action that started this thread off was not unrelated to the infraction, so whether or not you consider it a serious error, it wouldn't cause redress to be denied.

Well, it didn't bore me. It has finally sunk in, having been properly educated on the reg.

It apparently is only mildly interesting how much I (we) dislike South's inaction. TD should rule 4H by North +1 for both sides.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on Jul 21 2010, 07:06 PM, said:

It apparently is only mildly interesting how much I (we) dislike South's inaction.

...unless you consider it to be wild or gambling, neither of which require it to be unrelated to the infraction. However, the impression I have from this thread is that most commentators didn't consider South's pass to be either of those things.

[jdonn]

JLOGIC, on Jul 21 2010, 07:25 AM, said:

What is the legal basis for your theory that "no length tank cannot talk you out of a normal action"? Seems like it's just some kind of maxim or something.

You changed the quote in a small but very important way. But anyway it was only intended to be a maxim, something I believe, not a law or something.

But when you say "Normal actions are normal because of the information available to you at the time." that hides the points that actions based on the mannerisms of an opponents are to a large degree unreliable (especially relative to information from the auction), and that the laws say you infer from that particular type of information at your own risk. Not all information is the same.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on Jul 21 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

JanM, on Jul 21 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Where does IWoG appear in the previous laws?

It doesn't. It may have been in a WBFLC minute, I'm not sure.

The term did not appear in the 1997 Laws.

It was introduced in the The First Edition of the World Bridge Federation Code of Practice (“CoP”), which was published by the WBF in December 1999 and adopted by the European Bridge League in January 2000. However, as the Code of Practice did not replace the Laws themselves, NBOs were under no obligation to adopt the CoP. For example, in England the Laws & Ethics Committee decided not to adopt the CoP recommendations for denying redress for "irrational" actions.

MFA said:

The recent changing of the laws from "IWoG" to "SEWoG" seems to me to strongly suggest that the provision is to be used more often and thus more split scores are to be handed out in these kind of situations than in the old days. It's all about trying to get a feel for how much it takes to be a "SEWoG

I'm not so sure about that. My guess is that the WBFLC judged the term "serious error" to be a modern/better way of saying "irrational" just as it judged to replace the word "penalty" with "rectification" in many places.